There is no question but that certain issues can be very complex. Many passages in the Bible require a lot of study, thinking and reflection to come to a better understanding of them. However, sometimes we complicate passages ourselves by overlooking the practical value that they have and trying to turn them into some kind of theological construct. They become a platform for “theology” rather than a foundation for practical evaluation and motivation. I believe some of the “theological” controversies of the past and present are at least partially due to this problem of interpretation. I want to illustrate what I’m talking about by looking at some examples.

1. Philippians 2 has long been at the heart of a controversy surrounding Jesus Christ. The issue here is in verses 6-8. Some take the phrase “emptied Himself” to mean that when Jesus came to this earth, He divested Himself of all of His divine attributes and characteristics -- in essence, His godhood. Some will argue more bluntly that He gave up His Deity. This is all supposed to be proved by the phrase “emptied Himself.” But this is all theological nonsense, and it misses the point of the whole passage in context. Paul’s intent here was not to issue some kind of theological construct so that controversy about Jesus’ nature would ensue through the centuries, but to give practical motivation for Christians to act properly toward one another. The first 5 verses make this plain. Verses 3-4, in particular, give us the ideal definition of what it means to empty ourselves. We empty ourselves by doing nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, and through humility learning to look after the needs of others. Then Paul points to Jesus as the supreme example of this (vs. 5). Verses 6-8 tell us that in living here and dying for us, He showed what it meant to “empty Himself.” In other words, He did nothing through selfishness or conceit, and He put the needs of others first (notice that it does not say that He “emptied Himself OF” a bunch of things, just that He “emptied Himself”). The passage is meant to be more practical, not so much theological. The point is that if God in the flesh can show such selflessness, how much more should we demonstrate such action toward our brethren. It’s practical throughout.

2. This same problem is seen in passages such as Psalm 51, where Calvinists will argue that verse 5 is said to prove the doctrine of inherited depravity. They use it as a theological construct, but do we really think that David meant it this way? Was David, in his sorrow and yearning, trying to issue a theological doctrine? Perhaps I’ve missed the point, but it seems that David is simply stating how deep his sin was through hyperbolic language (exaggeration for emphasis). In reading the entire Psalm, such an interpretation does not appear out of line. (I opt for this over some of the other explanations that do not seem as satisfactory to me.) At any rate, it is certain that David’s purpose was practical, not theological.

3. A host of other issues can be added here: sanctification, revelation, the book of Revelation, how God’s providence works, etc. One more example I see is the question of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. How much space has been used to argue as to whether or not He indwells only through the word as opposed to “personally” or “literally”? Do we really think that God intended for His statements regarding the indwelling to be so debated? Frankly, I have yet to find the passage that says exactly “how” it is done, and if God wanted to pointedly tell us, He would have. The point, however, is not the “how,” but rather the practical implications of it. The fact is that the Spirit indwells. Whether any of us could ever explain or fully understand how is beside the point. I trust God that it is true (my personal view is that the “indwelling” simply describes a relationship or fellowship). What God wants us to know is that He indwells; and since He indwells, He expects us to act in a particular way. Is this not the point of 1 Corinthians 6:18-20? It was not meant for theological debate, but for practical application. Since He indwells, then we must glorify God in our bodies. Period. That’s the whole point.

I’m not trying to argue here that theological issues are not important. But I am arguing that we can miss the practical points of these various teachings and thus miss why they were taught. So while we discuss various theological matters, let’s never forget that practical application is at the heart of why God revealed His will to us (cf. Jas. 1:21-22). Otherwise, we might as well lock ourselves in monasteries and forget about trying to reach the common people. And common people is just what we all are anyway.

Doy Moyer